May 22, 2010

We're all sinners, the preacher tells us. We get what that means, don't we? Why then don't we understand the idea that we're all racists? Why does that bother people so? I've been listening to Critical Race Theory for the last 25 years, so saying that everyone is afflicted by racism seems more tedious and trite to me than truly offensive. Is it useful — is it helpful — to approach problems this way, that's what I would ask. But I've been living in a hothouse — among the lawprofs. Out there in the larger social and political world, people feel quite offended and genuinely threatened at the suggestion that their ideas and beliefs have any relationship to racism.

"Racist" is a personal insult, and it's almost as impossible to prove it as to disprove it. It's not a terribly illuminating term, either: If you call me a racist, you haven't really described anything I've done that's objectionable. You've just somehow designated me, and my so-far unchallenged arguments, outside the pale, so to speak.

Taranto resorts to the dictionary — the Oxford English Dictionary (hello! we're Americans!) — to tell us what "racism" means. It's a restrictive definition that preserves the strong pejorative. This is like restricting "sin" to the truly terrible things that other people do, which allows you to maintain a pious sense that of course you are one of the good people. The sinners are those other people. It is possible to think of racism as a much more pervasive phenomenon that we should all contemplate in an honest and self-critical way.

But using the term to assault your political opponents is different. You're not being self-critical. You're still saying there's something terrible about those other people. There could be a serious and valuable inquiry into widespread and largely unconscious racism in American society, but the cheap use of the term "racist" for political gain pushes that inquiry out of reach. What is useful? What is helpful? Maybe it is to wield the restrictive OED definition and lambaste anybody who doesn't stick to it.

198 comments:

I think it's fair to say that there is a strong and pervasive streak of racism among Americans. It is not fair to say that people who voted for Obama are less racist than other Americans. That is like saying that Bill Clinton is less sexist than Clarence Thomas.

This has the potential to be a very good thread. Words as descriptors, and words as weapons. Depraved is another good one--"the universal depravity of man." But harder to sling as a weapon at a particular target.

It causes individuals to have to stop focusing on their argument and begin to address whether, or not, they are indeed, a racist. They have to prove they're not (an impossible feat).

The entire point of hurling the "racist" charge it is to throw people off and change the subject. It doesn't matter whether the person is an actual racist or not ... that's irrelevant. The strategy works even better if the accused is in fact not a racist.

Questioning the motives of someone who might, for example, be arguing that we should lower welfare payments is a way of refocusing the argument so that lowering welfare payments is no longer the topic under debate. The speaker's racist motives become the topic.

It's a brilliant strategic maneuver and that's why it is still in use. It works.

Evidence?

Barack Obama - who claims to have read the Arizona immigration law - still makes the asinine claim that it has the "potential" to lead to racism. Even though the law specifically mandates the police cannot use it to engage in racial profiling.

Obama knows the law is race neutral. But that doesn't matter to him. He has successfully changed the debate by accusing everyone in Arizona of being racists.

It's a deliberate strategy he is using that he believes will work to call Americans racists so that they have to stop passing laws he doesn't support.

Leftists will continue using this strategy until we fire their asses and they realize that the tactic is no longer useful.

"I think it's fair to say that there is a strong and pervasive streak of racism among Americans."

I think it's fair to say that there is a strong and pervasive streak of racism amongst black Americans, 96% of whom voted for Barack Obama. Many did so merely based on the color of his skin ... something that would have appalled Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

He dreamed of a day when people would be judged by the content of their character - and black people are not doing that. They're judging Barack Obama by the color of his skin and voting for him on that basis alone, which is the most racist aspect of America.

As long as black people vote for Barack Obama based solely on the color of his skin, Dr. Martin Luther King's dream is dead. Black people must stop being racists or racism will never end.

@William: it may be fair, but it may not be helpful, in that five might agree with you, but all be thinking of different things by "racism" than the others.

I would be inclined to say "there is a sense [ie some sense of the term 'racism'] is which there is a strong a pervasive streak of racism among Americans." Some more pernicious than others. Some quite pernicious, but in different ways.

In short, I think you are right, but that we would have to talk about that first before we could get much further.

We are all "racist" if you define that as noticing race. But then again, we notice someone's weight, clothing, car, home, general appearance, speaking manner, etc., etc. and make all kids of prejudgments from that.

Rather than trying to lable people racist, we should be working to not define people by race but by their individual traits and character.

I think the offense comes from the fact that those who believe most strongly in the pernicious influence of racism in our society tend to see racism as flowing from "white" people to other races, exclusively. There is almost never a discussion of the fact that racism flows in both directions, and that the increasingly tumescent definition of racism should properly include the ethnic-identity tribalism currently celebrated as "multi-cultural diversity". To me, this has always been evidence of a deeply-ingrained racism in those who most freely use "racism" as an epithet, because they refuse to hold other races to the same impossible standards as they hold "racist whites". It's typical leftist paternalism, and probably a more insidious racist force today than the segregationist racism that poisoned our society in previous generations.

I think people also take offense because they know that the "racist" epithet is often wielded in a completely cynical way, as a tool of political blackmail rather than an actual moral accusation. People not motivated by racial animus who have been on the receiving end of the accusation of racism know how damaging the charge can be and know that it's an attempt to silence them. It dishonors those who have actually suffered racial (or other) discrimination and has thoroughly poisoned our political dialogue.

This is all part and parcel of the modern obsession with psychoanalysis and subtext. It doesn't matter what you say anymore, it's what you possibly feel or think that's the issue. If we actually listened and responded to people's words rather than our "intuition" of their motives, we'd be a lot better off. I blame television and the 19th Amendment.

Ann, the answer to your question is that the term is deliberately used in a way that conflates the specific and general senses that you talk about. When one political opponent calls another a racist, he may claim to be using it in the CRA sense, but will of course disclaim racism on his own part, implicitly acknowledging that he *really* means it in the personal insult sense. Comparisons to KKK members and Jim Crow laws further demonstrate just what meaning really is intended by those who hurl the racism charges.

If someone wants to talk seriously about the kind of racism that CRA is supposedly about, then that person should make it clear that they are *definitely not* using "racism" in the personal insult mode.

Well, Professor, you're growing up. Any idea when the rest of your colleagues at the People's Republic of Madison will do the same?

Racism will end when the US of A has a totally color-blind society. Above and beyond my fiscal conservatism, I am a Republican in part because all of the people I've met who agree the goal of a color-blind society are Republicans and no Democrat that I've met agrees with the desirability of a color-blind society. (Note that I didn't say achievability -- I have not found a Democrat who thinks a color-blind society is even a desirable goal.)

Short quiz to identify which of you readers slept through your math classes. Does what I wrote mean that all Republicans believe in a color-blind society?

It would be interesting to hear the comments of African Americans about whites uttered in their own homes and to compare those with the intimate commentary of whites about blacks. Anyone care to guess? Does it matter? It is all very tedious.

The leftist racism festish has become so sordid and ridiculous that there is only one word to describe it... racism!

The left is unabashedly, vehemently racist. It's "racism is everything" ideology is as racist as it is possible to be.

The quota system that places white, hetero men at the bottom for jobs and goodies is viciously racist, and it's courtesy of the left. Once again, the left is unashamedly, crazy racist.

The left has become a parody of itself, as it slips deeper and deeper into its vicious racism

White middle class people are now the Kulaks for the Democratic Party. Even Althouse as fallen into the trap. So, say you succeed in defining white middle class people as racists. What does that do? Does it disqualify them from voting? Does it make them ineligible to advance their own economic and political interests?

Should they be carted off to re-education camp?

Even racists have the right to vote. For proof of that, check out the voting patterns of blacks, who vote as a block for black candidates.

The epitome of the race hustling has to be a show I saw in History Channel a few nights ago. It referred to the Chicago race riots of 1919, which it assured us was entirely the fault of whites, concerned that blacks would destroy their neighborhoods.

Of course, that is precisely what happened. In every neighborhood where blacks took up residence in Chicago, rampant crime followed, with the consequent destruction of the neighborhood. (Of course, somehow this is the fault of whites.)

And, the only "expert" the History Channel chose to consult on this subject... the black racist gangster, Al Sharpton.

We're all sinners, the preacher tells us. We get what that means, don't we? Why then don't we understand the idea that we're all racists?

Um, because all of us are not. We are all sinners, but we are not all sinners in the same way.

As for Critical Race Theory and Critical Legal Studies, they are neo-Marxist theories concerned primarily with power, and using class conflict as a weapon to obtain and exercise power.

Thus, you have this silly claim that because blacks have historically had no political power, it is impossible for them to be racist. Same with other non-whites. Only whites can be racist as a matter of definition. That is the claim even though any observer cannot avoid noticing an awful lot of racial tension and conflict between blacks and Latinos, blacks and Asians, Latinos and Asians, and on and on.

So, of course, the accusation now is tedious and trite. It has been made into an irrational political weapon, totally divorced from any reason or reality of a given person or situation.

Moreover, more often than not, that weapon is used by those who truly are, if not objectively racist, then certainly racialist. Of course, I mean the masters of the Democratic Plantation, the Party of Slavery, Seccession, and Segregation, who have done little except enhance and enflame racial strife.

I have lived in a few very liberal places in my life, where all the "enlightened" elites live, and each place is racially segregated.

First we have Ann Arbor, which I understand to be even worse than Madison. And the city is highly segregated, with blacks mainly confined to a few areas.

Close by, although I never lived there, is the Detroit area, which has been a hot-bed of racial hatred since the 1967 riots and before. Detroit mayor Coleman Young made a career out of hating whites and spurring black Detroiters to join in his hatred, which of course had the effect of white-flight from the city. So you had/have blacks hating whites, and whites hating blacks in return. And then throw into the mix the Middle Easterners in Dearborn and nearby areas.

Now I live in Arlington, Virginia, which has moved steadily to the left since I moved here. Right now, I live in the middle of Central America, an area of South Arlington that is about 90 percent Hispanic, and much of that primarily Spanish-speaking. A couple miles away, the neighborhoods are 95 percent black. And then you have North Arlington, which is about 85 percent white.

For all their liberality, it appears that few of those on the Arlington left want to live by someone of a different race.

It's wrong to dislike or disapprove of someone based solely on his skin color.

However, in many cases, it's okay to dislike or disapprove of someone based on his culture.

Take the son-in-law test for an example:If your daughter wanted to marry a man of a different race, but he had the same religion and values as you, you probably wouldn't mind so much.

But if you were a meat-and-potatoes Irish Catholic Christian and he was Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist or pagan and ate dog-meat or the flesh of his human enemies or something else you found repellent, you would probably oppose the marriage.

Skin color is a good indicator of potential conflicts of culture. If you can look beyond skin color and judge a man on his character, then you're not a racist in my book.

However, if you define racism as any distaste for any other person different from you in any way, then everyone is a racist.

When I was an undergrad at UCI in the early seventies there was a black minority studies professor, Ernie something, who stated unequivocally that all whites were racists. I went round and round with one of his students, insisting that this was wrong since I, a white, was not a racist. Of course, I couldn't ever prove I wasn't. Finally I hit on a workable argument-- saying that all whites are racists is in itself a racist statement. Q.E.D. To my astonishment I was told that this was impossible since no blacks were racists. I remember thinking at the time that this attitude would be shoved to the side of the road as race relations matured. Amazingly, thirty-five years later this is precisely the attitude of the Jacksons, Sharptons and Farrakhans of the world. To be sure, racism is not completely gone, but it is certainly a weak, pale and marginalized version of what was extant in 1960. In fact, racisms's supposed victims will never let it just go away.

It has no power anymore. I don't care who calls me racist. It means nothing more than if they call me a heathen or a sinner. These things are beyond anyone's jurisdiction to me. Those things live within me or not. What matters is how my actions affect others, period. I also don't care if someone hates me, as long as they don't act on it to harm me. I do my best to be decent and helpful. Seeing that fairly is their responsibility and their failure if they miss it..

If I understand shootingthomas correctly, pretty soon no white people will hold jobs. That is why the unemployment rate for blacks is lower than it is for whites. That is why all the best-paying jobs in America are held by blacks. What a racist system! Oh, wait...

New Ham - "something that would have appalled Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

He dreamed of a day when people would be judged by the content of their character - and black people are not doing that."

Conservatives who profess a love for Saint Martin love that one quote out of context.The REAL MLK was a quota-loving race entitlement champion and socialist who wanted to redistribute wealth by law commensurate with skin color.

===============Accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, anti-Semitism are tools liberals (or gay activists, Zionists) use to shut down argument against their position.All have slowly lost their sting in public debate and all have been increasingly fought in court when used as a means of enforcing career repercussions on campus or in the workplace to enforce groupthink on employees unrelated to job performance.

I'm going to try to phrase my argument so that even an outright racist fuck like Ritmo Brasileiro can understand.

For the past five years, I've worked as a contractor... because my clients don't want my white ass on their racial quota sheet.

They need my superior technical skills, so they hire me on a contract basis.

This means that they don't have place a check mark on the white male box when they report to the Fed.

I spoke recently to a black friend who is in the same field in which I work. He's a naturalized African black. As we discussed his business, i realized that he receives a quota preference over a native born white man.

Perhaps this example can be understood by a lowlife racist fuck like Ritmo Brasileiro.

I'm tired of getting fucked over, you racist bastard. And I'm doubly tired of some fucking racist bastard like you telling me I should be smiling as I get fucked in the ass.

You must have a resume as impressive as your facility with the language, shooting too much.

The hilarity of the modern conservative is not really the degree to which they take issue with a policy that you're not all that attached to anyway. It's how irritated, clumsy and stupid they get when you point out their inability to reconcile reality with their theories.

I ask the gentle reader how impressed a prospective employer would be by a job seeker as unhinged as this:

I'm going to try to phrase my argument so that even an outright racist fuck like Ritmo Brasileiro can understand.

For the past five years, I've worked as a contractor... because my clients don't want my white ass on their racial quota sheet.

They need my superior technical skills, so they hire me on a contract basis.

This means that they don't have place a check mark on the white male box when they report to the Fed.

I spoke recently to a black friend who is in the same field in which I work. He's a naturalized African black. As we discussed his business, i realized that he receives a quota preference over a native born white man.

Perhaps this example can be understood by a lowlife racist fuck like Ritmo Brasileiro.

I'm tired of getting fucked over, you racist bastard. And I'm doubly tired of some fucking racist bastard like you telling me I should be smiling as I get fucked in the ass.

As employers now routinely fire employees for posting compromising details about their personal lives on Facebook, I wonder how this extended exercise in unhinged vulgarity and vitriol by a pseudonymous commenter with a name that conveys an unhinged personality, would be perceived.

So someone who's conveyed not a single iota of any intellectually, personally or socially redeeming skills in the paltry number of comments he's posted over the years, who even goes by a name that conveys as much, bitches about not being taken seriously in the job market as he curses, swears, insults, emotes and blusters his way toward condescension, vitriol and, oh yes, the idea that his true aim is really just about fairness.

As you can see, the left (as exemplified by this Ritmo bastard) is openly, proudly racist.

I'll try to explain what's going on a little more clearly. I'll give up completely on the racist fuck Ritmo.

I recently completed a software application for a major university in New York City. In my meetings with my client, I quickly understood why they had to hire me. Quota hiring had produced a staff of incompetents. My project manager had never managed a project. She was hired because she was a black woman. Perfectly nice woman. Complete incompetent.

When I finished the software application, I received a slew of e-mails from members of my team who work full time for this client.

The next day, a recruiting firm called to ask me if I was interested in a full time job at this university.

I called my project manager, who had so effusively praised me only a day before, and said that I'd like to work full time.

She said she would look into it.

Haven't heard a word from that client in a month.

This client hires on a rigid race and sex quota system. Even an Indian immigrant has a leg up on me.

"It's how irritated, clumsy and stupid they get when you point out their inability to reconcile reality with their theories."

When you're asked to reconcile reality with your theories (I assume there must be some in there somewhere), you start writing like a mediocre thesaurus-bearing college sophomore trying to impress your sociology T.A. because she has a nice ass.

Little do you know that she's fucking a grad student in the business school because he's got a big dick and some prospects.

The important thing to remember is that the slightest resistance to turning your pockets inside out in the name of compassion gets you labeled RACISSS! This is the entire meaning and use of the term as employed by the evil professor-priests who have us in their grip.

Theodore Dalrymple is a British doctor (sort of a British Celine) who has written many books about how prejudice is ok. He looks at patients and pretty much prejudges the scenario, and thinks he probably understands what the problem is and then does closer scrutiny of actual details. He says to do otherwise is a huge waste of time. What is experience for?

If you're meeting a redneck should you be surprised that they use the n word?

If you're meeting a Japanese person, should you be surprised that they think the seasons are beautiful each in their own way?

People from groups have their own stories, and if you know those stories, why should you pretend that you don't?

Obama is the most racist person in America, and he's not even slightly ashamed of it. He feels quite free to malign the police of Cambridge or the people of western Pennsylvania.

BTW, I'm not denying that there could be problems in shooting Tom's industry when it comes to honesty, let alone hiring practices that are fair. I'm commenting on the incongruity between his assumption of his value as an employee (or contractor, little difference) and the way he behaves REGULARLY, and exhibits little to show for any other way of conducting himself.

BTW, I'm not denying that there could be problems in shooting Tom's industry when it comes to honesty or social skills, let alone fair hiring practices. I'm commenting on the incongruity between his own assumption of his value as an employee (or contractor, little difference) and the way he behaves REGULARLY, while demonstrating preciously little to show for himself when it comes to conducting one's actions in a civilized manner.

BTW, I'm not denying that there could be problems in shooting Tom's industry when it comes to honesty, let alone hiring practices that are fair. I'm commenting on the incongruity between his assumption of his value as an employee (or contractor, little difference) and the way he behaves REGULARLY, and exhibits little to show for any other way of conducting himself.

Kiss my ass, you racist fuck.

I'm not going to bother to be polite to a racist fuck like you.

In my little hometown of Woodstock, home to the extreme left, the morons have nailed a huge poster of the cold blooded cop killer, Mumia, up on the wall of the Rec Center.

Little do you know that she's fucking a grad student in the business school because he's got a big dick and some prospects.

I'll not comment on the penis size of MBAs. I wouldn't know much about that or the size of their penises as a whole, not sure anyone else would, and I'll let speak for itself the way some of their behaviors could be said to compensate for something else.

As for job prospects of current MBAs in the midst of the recession they caused, Palladian needs to read the news. And other things.

If shoutingthomas had the identical story, but was himself a black guy, I have no doubt Ritmo would be appalled by the racial discrimination described. It is still racism: purposefully harming someone based only on the color of their skin. And it's institutional and nationwide.

Does Woodstock have an insane asylum for individuals who have chosen to set up shop among people they so intensely detest?

Perhaps you could interest the city in contracting your services to help them with the asylum's IT department once they do.

What an unhinged whack job! Thomas obviously makes the bizarre mistake of blaming me for his unhappy choice of residence. Perhaps I can also take the blame for every aspect of his psychotic, entitlement-seeking manner.

He is certainly not lifting himself up by his bootstraps and choosing to live among people who will make him feel more comfortable about the things he whines about. This is obviously a conservative failure.

At Ritmo's 12:08 post re penis size, there is the Canadian Professor Phillipe Rushton who has actually done research on penis size by racial categories--I suppose there might be a way to cross walk his data into MBA categories--but on the other hand, who really cares? I bring up the point only to suggest that indeed, penis size has been studied by some

If shoutingthomas had the identical story, but was himself a black guy, I have no doubt Ritmo would be appalled by the racial discrimination described. It is still racism: purposefully harming someone based only on the color of their skin. And it's institutional and nationwide.

I wouldn't be appalled but I would be more likely to find an institutional problem if the numbers reflect that. As they do.

Now, Shooting Too Much might have a legitimate grievance. But his inability to speak in an intelligent and civilized way lead me to believe that he probably doesn't. As do the choices he's made to contribute to his own failures (He absolutely hates where he lives. What sort of person who pretends to stand an equal chance, when put on equal footing with others who also claim that they just want to make the most of themselves, behaves that way? Do the rest of you cons think his stupidity does you any favors?)

Getting back to racism - or the ever fainter traces of it that remain, it's a societal thing that usually breaks down when you try to apply it to individuals. I tried to remind you of this by mentioning the fallacy of division earlier. Best y'all read up on it.

No, Ritmo, I'm calling you out as an overt racist because that's what you are.

And, I notice, you lowlife racist, that you keep sidestepping the accusation.

You should be barred from public life as a avowed racist.

Let me be a little bit clearer about this client of mine. They advertised the precise job I had just done for them, in the same department. They praised me effusively for solving a long-standing problem they had been unable to solve.

This client has refused to even interview me for this position... the very position I just filled as a consultant.

The reason is racial and sexual quotas.

Now, Ritmo, get lost. Racists can't be allowed in polite company.

You're one of the worst racists I've encountered. Blame the victim of racism for bitching about being the target of racism.

The Left and the Demos, of course, do not want a color blind society. If they did, you would not see people who should be in prison, such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, feted in their highest circles. Likewise, racism only goes one way for the Left - only whites can be racist, everyone else is a victim. This is so the 'victims' will be dependent on the The Demos.

What's killing this Golden Goose, of course, is the current administration, which is proving to be so incompetent and corrupt, the usual Alinskyizing of enemies doesn't work any more because so many people from different persuasions are starting to see things the same way.

William said...

I think it's fair to say that there is a strong and pervasive streak of racism among Americans.

I think it's fair to say you're just voicing an old Leftist canard and really don't know anymore about this country that the empty suit in the White House (and I'll bet he hates that, too).

Thomas--I really dont have a dog in this fight, but would suggest you are asking Ritmo to prove a negative--There were quite a few commenters who hammered out hostess for doing precisely this thing on the post on libertarianism and the civil rights amendment down thread.

If you are arguing that the job hiring practice is skewed by government policy and law, I agree. Don't think you can take it much beyond that. c

At Ritmo's 12:08 post re penis size, there is the Canadian Professor Phillipe Rushton who has actually done research on penis size by racial categories--I suppose there might be a way to cross walk his data into MBA categories--but on the other hand, who really cares? I bring up the point only to suggest that indeed, penis size has been studied by some.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone has, and I wouldn't be surprised if MBAs (or anyone else with the appearance of "prestige") showed some other marker of testosterone. (I, myself, am unconcerned about the size of my own member as it has caused neither me nor any of my lovers any distress. Although it has caused increased interest. I mention this only because Palladian seems to have an, er, rather personal interest at stake, as I might also - if I had neither an at least adequate-sized member or - and this is important - other redeeming values besides).

But this gets us to something else. I think every species will compete on the basis of which testosterone-linked traits the males exhibit, and to the extent that penis size, physical strength, or other attributes that allow one to out-compete, these might matter.

But so do other traits that enhance the overall viability of the species as a whole, regardless of which gender the female gives birth to. And thus, an unimaginative woman might simply choose the guy with the most steroids or evidence thereof. And a smarter woman will choose traits in a man that will benefit all of her offspring, regardless of their gender.

But Palladian's a homosexual so maybe that sort of an analysis doesn't register so easily with him. And hence, his fixation with a cartoonish stereotype of virility that could have just as easily come from an episode of Happy Days or an Archie comic strip.

I'm only speculating here but it's no less plausible than any of the bullshit he comes up with.

"I just like the fact that the face slap sound effect used in the Gantry trailer is the same face slap sound effect used in the Three Stooges."

Some of that stuff is eternal in Hollywood; for decades, practically every arrow shot sound in Hollywood came from the set created for The Adventures of Robin Hood, for instance. Funny to think of Indians shooting arrows first launched 600 years earlier.

The most famous example is the Wilhelm Scream: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdbYsoEasio

Shooting Tom's Ass: You obviously need to get a job. Conservative values demand that you either get a job or be known to all as irredeemably lazy. "Teh blacks took my job! (and made my town hate me!)" is not a very convincing line of attack anymore.

Even though the law specifically mandates the police cannot use it to engage in racial profiling.

Officer Rick: How can you suspend me? On what grounds? Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that racial profiling is going on in here! [another officer silently catches Renault's attention and points to some Chicanos gathered by the door] Other Officer: Your illegals, sir. Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much. [aloud] Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!

Like those (racist?) Palestinians, Shooting Thomas never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Name calling against people who might agree with him? How dare you agree with SHOUTINGTHOMAS! You're a racist!!! I'm going to shut down discussion rather than forge agreement with me! ackspitlleblahblahblah

Shooting Tom's Ass: You obviously need to get a job. Conservative values demand that you either get a job or be known to all as irredeemably lazy. "Teh blacks took my job! (and made my town hate me!)" is not a very convincing line of attack anymore.

You lying, un-compassionate SOB!

I do have a job, racist. I work entirely as a consultant so that the company doesn't have to list my white ass on their quota balance sheet.

Note that you have no response to my constant characterization of you as a lying racist.

My line of attack is quite simple. You are a racist apologist for a racist system. And, like all racists, you resort to endless lies to justify you racism.

As Shooting Tom's Ass revealed that he is just calling names in order to emulate a tactic that he envies, it's obvious that he can't be relied upon to even believe what he says. So job or not, he's just disgruntled and in no way to be taken seriously about any larger issue that he pretends to want to discuss.

st -- it's hard for me to understand how the diversity quota for blacks could be 100%. Or are there a few whities hired in the 80s, still clinging to their jobs? The diagnosis of racism seems a bit too pat.

Other things come to mind in your particular case. Like maybe your employer has a deal with the university that they can't hire any contractors directly. Or maybe your employer charges an employment agency fee for people going temp to perm.

The university may be discriminating against you based on age or health. Are either of those possible? Or it could be like getting tenure -- they like your work, but not enough to make you a permanent employee.

Finally, you may -- just may, mind you -- come across in person as too cantankerous for a perm hire.

Here's the deal on racism: Non-racists can say or do things that come across as racist because they don't know any better. Imagine if you were raised by wolves, and taught English as a young man. Finaly you're ready to go out amongst civilized people. You see a young woman in a tight skirt, and say to her, "Nice ass!"

You're not a sexist, you just said something sexist. You were only trying to pay her a compliment, to make her feel good about herself.

I personally think that ST(D) might be a victim of discrimination. And while it's possible that a racial quota has held him back, I think it's just as likely that his employers are exhibiting the pernicious discrimination that exists against people who can't stop being assholes.

His cause is a worthy one for which we should all fight. We will never be free until the sociopathic assholes are allowed full rights in every realm of life.

Assholes of the World, Unite!

BTW FLS, do you think it's an unfair stereotype that computer programmers aren't always thought to have the best social skills?

Republicans are very defensive right now. They know their true racist KKK colors on on display now in front of ALL Americans. They thought they were gonna take back the Congress. Now in revulsion, the American people will solidify the Democrat majority.

Republicans are very defensive right now. They know their true racist KKK colors on on display now in front of ALL Americans. They thought they were gonna take back the Congress. Now in revulsion, the American people will solidify the Democrat majority.

Racist Assholes, Uber Alles!!!!

Once again, the Moby breaks the surface, among other things.

This is the same drivel Wacko belches. One candidate in KY and the whole country is going to vote small c communist. The drubbing they took on Tuesday must have hit harder than we thought.

"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

The Klan was a creation of Democrats who refused to accept Reconstruction, which was implemented by the Republican Congress, including the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, plus the Civil Rights Acts -- all written and passed by Republicans, not Democrats.

As a suspected sinner, racist, sexist, homophobe, double-dipper, wingnut, Nazi, teabagger, who sometimes takes unnecessary high carbon vacations for pure pleasure I'd like to say: It's not that bad at all. Things are pretty good and nobody even seems to suspect my evil character flaws. I'm even a registered Democrat. That one does cause me some embarrassment, but I'm working on fixing it. I might need therapy.

Then I wonder, Ritmo, if the current higher unemployment among males and reduced enrollment by males in university indicates institutional sexism against men.

American institutions are selecting against typically male characteristics. American employers want a compliant workforce, and typically women get along better with the boss. Their egos are not as invested in their jobs as men's are, and they are not going to challenge the boss's authority.

Boys' problems with schooling begin in first grade, where they are required to sit down and quietly listen to the teacher. This handicaps many boys, who can learn only by doing, and who quickly get bored and find other things to do to amuse themselves. Century-old techniques like Montessori, that accommodate the boy need to move around and DO stuff, are thought to be too expensive to implement.

I'm not going to say it's the resulr of nature or nurture, but surely girls' ability to sit still and do as they're told helps them both in school and at work.

"American institutions are selecting against typically male characteristics. American employers want a compliant workforce, and typically women get along better with the boss. Their egos are not as invested in their jobs as men's are, and they are not going to challenge the boss's authority."

That may be true, but those exact arguments are made against blacks. So why is it then in need of government remedial intervention? Do we need affirmative action for males now?

I believe that there are victims of racism of every color. As early as 1979 I was told by a government agency that an internship that I was applying for was not available as I was the wrong race.

I am routinely called a racist because I never,ever consider race in any of my comments or friendships. You see, to be color blind is to be racist.

BHO will destroy the last vestiges of non-black sympathy for historical black racism. He is so transparenlty a product of our affirmative action system that his evident failure will serve as a cautionary warning to future generations.

And when he loses reelection the hustlers will call all of America 'racist' and that day the charge of racism will cease to have power.

Then I wonder, Ritmo, if the current higher unemployment among males and reduced enrollment by males in university indicates institutional sexism against men. The numbers due reflect that.

Since the division of people into races is generally an artificial construction, I don't condone it as some law of nature.

Sexism is different. I don't believe in institutionalizing or legislating what the sexes can or cannot, should or should not, do. Nor do I think that individuals of one sex won't excel at something and surpass the expected performance of those of the other sex. But the sexes are, by definition, naturally different. No one disputes this. The only dispute is whether the distinctions go beyond anatomy and role in physical reproduction and also impact upon how we think, or various mental strengths.

The evidence would seem to suggest that, grossly, they do. Hormones have effects on neurological tissue, no less than they do on other tissues. I tend to think that an intelligent woman and an intelligent man would be more capable of understanding each other, though, and that the differences lie in how stupid men are stupid in characteristic ways and how unintelligent women tend to have their own, different sorts of mental road blocks. But whatever.

I believe that the reason women are going to college in higher numbers has to do with social issues. But mentally, I think it's important to point out that women are better at memorization. The male brain tends to do better at calculating and the sort of argumentation that higher learning used to emphasize. But that is no longer the case.

As long as education remains about rote memorization of facts, women will excel at this and go on to institutions of higher learning in greater numbers than men. Women have more white matter and are better at making connections between facts. The gray matter that predominates in male brains tends to make them better at abstract thought and calculation, argumentation, etc. Or so the theory would go.

Once Alinsky disciple shootingthomas left, it did. But of course your blindness to his massive shortcomings prevents you from seeing that, GMay.

Bag O', Roger J., and FLS are all trying to contribute beyond the din caused by shootingthomas' attempt to turn the discussion into a vulgar, vitriolic and overly personalized grievance festival. As have a bunch of others. Maybe you should tone down your blinding hatred of me just enough to try to see that. If you can help it. It can hurt one's focus.

Althouse's original post is actually quite intelligent and not likely at all to provoke anything disingenuous or hateful. I admit that I came in with a snarky riposte against the implication that racism isn't a largely one-way street, which shootingblanks chased around as diligently as a dog chasing its own tail.

But my words were all in agreement with Althouse. Racism is not best understood as a personal issue, but as one that exists at the level of the society. I even referred, over and over again, to the fallacy of division in order to illustrate the folly of proposing otherwise.

Of course, shootingblanks had a personal grievance and chose, in the fashion he characterized as "Alinskyite", to ruthlessly, and perhaps rather deliberately, designate yours truly as the personal object of any and all racial animus that he held. But which one of us is then guilty of going against the purpose of the post?

The fact that no one has spoken out or spoken up in defense of these facts, while purposely blaming me for derailing the thread, that says a lot. It says what lengths you're willing to go to in order to insult your host's intelligence by tacitly ignoring what she wants to point out in this very thread.

I don't hate you Ritmo, I just don't think you're very bright. I've taken plenty of time to make my case for your ineptitude.

For all I know, you feel the same way toward me, but you really shouldn't claim knowledge of my emotional feelings toward you from a simple post. I'll just add it to the Ritmo-ain't-so-bright file.

I saw ShoutingThomas make some assertions and then at least try back them up. I saw you just come in and snark. And it looks like your snark is what de-railed the thread. Is my assessment biased? I'm sure it is since I find almost every lefty that posts here to be either trollish, or painfully stupid, or both.

Again, the feeling is probably mutual, but I love the freedom AA gives us to say what we really mean here.

...As for Critical Race Theory and Critical Legal Studies, they are neo-Marxist theories concerned primarily with power, and using class conflict as a weapon to obtain and exercise power.

Thus, you have this silly claim that because blacks have historically had no political power, it is impossible for them to be racist. Same with other non-whites. Only whites can be racist as a matter of definition.

That is true, Flexo. And I wonder, given that the political power "tables have been turned" so to speak, and we now have a black president, a black AG (and a DOJ that refuses to prosecute the New Black Panthers case), etc., and we keep hearing that the "white percentage of the population is shrinking", whether Critical Race Theory and Critical Legal Studies proponents will begin to alter that definition of "racism". I ask rhetorically, of course...

But there is some hope. I thought Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. wrote a very intriguing, challenging article on reparations, for example.

My credentials as a racist have been called into question. I'm deeply hurt that a man cannot call himself a racist without being accused of having liberal proclivities.....I grew up in a housing project that was in the process of becoming an all black housing proect. I had several extremely negative experiences as did all the white people there. The adjoining neighborhood was Italian. The Italian kids were, if anything, even more rabid than the blacks. I was pretty much out of the black food chain, but the Italian kids went out of their way to pick fights. I was a sensitive child with a gentle, St Francis like disposition. I did not fare well in these encounters. It seems to me that although I had more fights with Italians than blacks, the black conflicts inspired a great deal more hatred and rage. That's just the way these things are.

FLS: Where did you read that Montesorri methods are too expensive to implement? Do you know the price of Montesorri versus the per student cost of a typical public school? Do you believe in every single solitary lefty idea ever uttered on this earth?

I don't care which "side" of the race issue you are, you're all insane to keep it going. Hearing Ann harp on it hits me the same way listening to Al Sharpton does.

When I lived in France, and finally got a bead on what "the American character" meant, I identified the obsession with race - not being pro-or con but the obsession itself - as one of the major failings of my country. I'm even more disappointed to be back and, along with discovering how little reason can be applied to NewAge subjects - and multiculturalism is a NewAge subject - having to endure it firsthand. It's just a never-ending argument, over the silliest thing imaginable, by people who ought to be smart enough to know better. They even give each other - and themselves - brownie points for doing so.

Rather than trying to lable people racist, we should be working to not define people by race but by their individual traits and character.

I totally agree with this, but I doubt that the American Left will let go of group identity politics quietly, because the loss of same would completely derail nearly everything they're trying to do to this country.

This nation was founded on individual rights; there's really no such thing as group rights, which is an artificial construct born of politicians who want to buy cheap votes by promising people something they haven't earned on the basis of membership in some perceived class of victimhood.

The sooner we start looking at and treating people as individuals instead of members of groups, the better off our nation will be. But it won't be easy...

I saw ShoutingThomas make some assertions and then at least try back them up. I saw you just come in and snark.

Well, perhaps you could ask your optometrist for lenses corrected to account for the way, at 11:33 AM, shootingblanks used variations of the word "fuck" three times, "ass" twice, and "bullshit", all within the course of 4 short sentences.

This led me to conclude that shootingblanks was a bit too unhinged to have a rational conversation - a conclusion bolstered by the abysmal level of articulateness he maintained in every post after that one.

It's interesting to hear Althousians complain about how unhinged the left is when the lack of decency shown by someone like shootingblanks (who, incidentally, complains about not getting a job(!) is enough to make Genghis Khan blush.

And it looks like your snark is what de-railed the thread.

My snark (in ONE POST! lol) is no match for shootingblanks' grievance-mongering barbarism, admitted disingenuousness and professed fixation with emulating tactics he said he derived from Alinsky.

But go ahead! Defend all that!

Is my assessment biased?

Well, you answer yourself in the next sentence. But your inability to admit that shootingblanks calls himself out as arguing (if you can even call his utterances that!) in bad faith says a lot.

I'm sure it is since I find almost every lefty that posts here to be either trollish, or painfully stupid, or both.

Enough said. But your lack of responsiveness says more. One would think a stupid remark would be easy for someone as allegedly intelligent as yourself to rebut. But apparently not.

And then we have the brainiac Fen, whose brilliance is of Nobel prize-caliber, come in and compare snark to rape:

'I admit that I came in with a snarky riposte against the implication that racism isn't a largely one-way street'

Just like you admitted to offering the boy candy to get in your car, but deny raping him.

He then goes against Althouse's explicit advice:

You are a race-mongerer, Ritmo.

While concluding the opposite of what that act of spitting in her face would imply:

Spin all you want, you'll never have any credibility on this forum.

Well, credibility among bubble-dwellers is not really my aim.

My words and ability to examine them will stand indefinitely. As will your inability to rebut anything I say or come up with a single reason for your own ideas that stands up to any scrutiny.

That must make you feel stupid. No wonder you feel so inclined to never come up with anything but ridiculous insults.

I don't hate you Ritmo, I just don't think you're very bright. I've taken plenty of time to make my case for your ineptitude.

Call me what you will. It's a pity your idea of intelligence doesn't include the ability to either read or to follow a thread and figure out which comments were personally directed at someone else (hint: my initial post at 11:03 was not) and which comments actually had anything to do with the conversation (shootingblanks ugly series of barks, yelps and whines from 11:33 on were anything but topical).

It is possible to think of racism as a much more pervasive phenomenon that we should all contemplate in an honest and self-critical way.

But using the term to assault your political opponents is different. You're not being self-critical. You're still saying there's something terrible about those other people. There could be a serious and valuable inquiry into widespread and largely unconscious racism in American society, but the cheap use of the term "racist" for political gain pushes that inquiry out of reach. What is useful? What is helpful? Maybe it is to wield the restrictive OED definition and lambaste anybody who doesn't stick to it.

FLS asked you a series of questions, one of which regarding whether your unhinged personality bears any consequences on your employment status. I noticed you declined to answer him.

Some knowledge of the fallacy of division would help these hapless cons understand the difference between criticism of a society and criticism of every individual therein.

Oh, horseshit.

I've never seen an objection to the critical race/white privilege theory that was not rebutted by accusing the objector of harboring "unconscious racism." No matter what you say, you are told that you are part of the problem.

I've said this before, but it's the same reasoning the Inquisition used: you needed to confess your heresy as soon as the subject was brought up. Denying that you were a heretic was considered proof positive that you were one.

And since we're discussing logical fallacies, how about the "code words"/strawman fallacy that abettors of CRT lean so heavily upon?

shootingthomas may be uncouth, but your willingness to draw hasty generalizations from his angry comments speaks volumes about your capacity to take another person seriously when he doesn't conform to your accepted behavior. A white man just ain't allowed to be mad, is he?

I think what is useful or helpful is to consider cases where cause and effect can be measured and that often is most obvious on the structural level. For example the high number of minority men incarcerated for drug use leads me to speculate that this is a result of institutional racism, but to suggest that the cop who arrests me for smoking a joint is a racist is more difficult to prove. Or another example would be the historical underrepresentation of women in engineering colleges that occurred for a variety of cultural and institutional factors, but to blame individual high school math and science teachers as sexist is a challenge.Before I would call an individual a racist, I would have to see clear overt actions as I care less about what a person my feel or think even when they like to delude themselves that they are color blind. Now I understand that affirmative action was/is an attempt to rectify institutional racism, and I have experience that work to my disadvantage several times. In one case where I was one of the two final choices, I was told by a candid department chair that all things being equal the minority woman candidate was going to get hired because they needed to balance out the department, which was overwhelming white teaching a minority population that had reached 50% of the student body. I could understand that and rather than cling to my bitterness over this, I applied to a different college and eventually ended up with a better position.

Any discussion of CRT obviously got swept under the rug when an aggrieved man with questionable social and intellectual skills used his inability to get a job as an opportunity to make me a casualty of his (dishonest) crusade against the left. This is exactly what he said:

'It worked just like it's supposed to! Call someone a racist and the entire conversation plummets down the hill so fast and far the point of it is all forgotten.'

Yes!

That was the point, Donna B.!

Use the same tactics on the lying, racist left that it uses.

Pretty effective, isn't it?

That having been said, both Althouse and I objected to making individuals the objects of accusations of racism. But neither of us said that absolved the society as a whole: I said as much explicitly and she at least implied it. So, given that, since when did Inquisition tactics hold societies responsible for their shortcomings? I thought the whole point of that sorry episode was to go after individuals?

Shootingtoms doesn't just dispense an angry comment or two. He goes on a rampage, dispensing nothing short of a series of foul-mouthed vitriol, in an effort to make this discussion as personal for him as he wants to make it, personally, about me. Any redeeming social commentary mysteriously hidden in his distressing gastronomical outbursts would have been acknowledged by me, and I said as much. But that was clearly not the point of his never-ending diatribe.

While you might have a different understanding of unhinged behavior than I do, I don't see why that should have anything to do with his being white, if he even is. If any generalization applies, it probably has more to do with the fact that computer programmers tend to not excel at being sociable.

MUL, Is life any better since the hot babe from Brazil showed you the best sex ever and then dumped your ass. That sure must have hurt your belief of yourself as a player.

Are you still flying the metal desk for the same company?

Darth, I must admit you are entertaining as a freak of nature.I do hope that you realize that your desire for earthy worship on the net is born of a deep seeded desire for acceptance. Does the attention you receive really satisfy your need?

Theo wrote "Excellent idea.But it won't stop this from hitting 300+ comments.

This is what MUL aims to create. MUL sits,surrounded byAlthouses guests,expounding uponthe knowledge that he will give to enlighten us common folk. There is a problem in that no one accepts his "wisdom". It's a shame that he does not realize that his pontification is only an opinion.

Once I realized that I was with a narcissistic, psychological invalid, that only the few techniques that were good weren't good enough to prevent every other act from being a facade, I didn't think it was all that good at all.

Of course, anyone can be uninhibited, but U.S. culture only encourages uninhibited behavior as a form of rebellion. And passions are relegated to stupid things like politics.

I find true passion anytime I get out of the U.S. and run into people less wound up into Cameron Frye's butthole than the strange and mysterious nobody going by the name "RLB" - or whatever.

Strange how someone would read my blog, pretend to know anything about me while fucking up so much of what I've bothered to talk about, while choosing to remain in the dark (like Vader?) himself.

But that's an idiot for you.

I could care less about the comment count. If one of you could bother to make a single cogent point, while not lying about what I've written (actually, bothering to read it would be a good start), then that would cut down on the comment count immeasurably.

But half of you are apparently illiterate.

There are others with the intelligence and decency necessary to prefer honesty. But RH factor reveals that he is certainly not one of them.

Screamingthomas has revealed that everything he accused me of was just done as a tactic, part of a dishonest game. RLB isn't much better, believing he can play some kind of Jedi mind trick on me by getting me to believe that what he misunderstands about me through a combination of poor reading comprehension and a fucked-up view of the world, is something that he can get me to believe as well.

Oh, I suppose I should reveal, for the sake of Really Low Brain weight (RLB IV), that there have been many other flings and relationships since. Some I appreciated more than others, some with individuals more redeeming than others. But putting that kind of context around his stupid remark would make his tiny, shrunken head spin.

Fine. But I was responding to another one of the sociopaths who happen to lurk around here, and he apparently happened to read about details regarding my life that unfortunately involved someone who had a real problem, a bonafide pathology.

Of course, he wasn't able to understand that, and tried to twist the sorry episode into some kind of comment about me and what I supposedly lack in life. Which was a pretty stupid thing for him to do, but whatever. That's all the guy's got, apparently.

You can knee-jerkingly prefer to relate to a point of view spewed out by someone too ignorant to understand the difference between illness and disease, let alone distinguish it for himself. But I can't play along with that kind of nonsense.

If you want more details, just ask. There are people with real, sometimes insurmountable, problems in the world and I don't think that's something that should be made light of or pretended away - especially not for the sake of an unproductive internet troll like RLB.

What the hell is "unconscious racism"? How can an unconscious person be racist?

PS: whenever I see that Ritmo Bore-silly-ano has joined a thread, I just unfocus my eyes enough so that I can't read his comment but can see the block(s) of type, and scroll until I'm past his offerings. I find that makes comment threads he's, uh, graced with his presence much easier to read.

Listen, man. A lot of people post comments or believe that the arguments behind their stances matter, just because they like to or because it is important to them. Althouse's own posts are a testament to this. The law itself, and many details of life in a modern civilization depend on getting the details behind an idea right.

Of course, I could just as easily say: "Fuck it. Who cares what I or anyone else think about anything?" That would be liberating, I suppose.

But when people post their ideas here, I assume that they take them seriously.

I don't take offense to anyone challenging the premises behind my thoughts and I am sorry if anyone here takes offense to being challenged in an ideological manner either. I just always have a tendency of underestimating how sensitive, um, - certain - people are about ideas that are so important to them that they don't seem to mind using them to bludgeon others who don't share those thoughts.

Maybe that makes sense to you. Maybe it doesn't. I hope you can find some appreciation for it.

PS: whenever I see that Ritmo Bore-silly-ano has joined a thread, I just unfocus my eyes enough so that I can't read his comment but can see the block(s) of type, and scroll until I'm past his offerings. I find that makes comment threads he's, uh, graced with his presence much easier to read.

That's because you know you're just as unworthy of being taken seriously yourself.

The fact that no one other than a precious few has a thing to say about Screaming Thomas' derailment of the thread says a lot. And not just about reading comprehension.

There could be a serious and valuable inquiry into widespread and largely unconscious racism in American society, but the cheap use of the term "racist" for political gain pushes that inquiry out of reach. What is useful? What is helpful?

I think when it comes down to it, modern-day "racism" is really just a collection of feelings and beliefs, composed of (often initially reasonable) areas of contention with the "other side", that the other side simply refuses or is unable to address. Thus, the other side appears callous to "our" reasonable needs, and we react with anger, disdain, or apathy in response. (No different really than the question many here have wondered on other posts: "why don't the Muslims condemn the violence conducted in their name"?; when they don't, many react with anger, etc. back towards them). The vicious cycle goes back and forth, getting more petty by the decade... until somebody has the courage to admit the real errors and weaknesses of their own race or group.

Recently, a leading African-American scholar did just that. Whites have argued against reparations for slavery for years. Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. wrote a book essentially arguing against reparations, because of the historical fact that black Africans played a big role as well in the slave trade. He took a fair amount of criticism from blacks. A few blogs on both sides of the aisle mentioned the article here and there, but then it was sadly swept under by the constant current of news events (and oil spills). But it shouldn't have...

And more importantly, it should have been a clue to whites to reflect, and give back something gratuitously to the "other side"; some bit of heartfelt honesty that it not always easy to say.

I'm not talking about "reaching across the aisle", blah. I'm talking about answering those age-old questions that we have always refused/been unable to answer. We can't do much about false accusations of racism (Tea Party "racism", Duke lax), other than prove it's not true, if it isn't. But what we do owe to the other side is an honest explanation for the legitimate questions that the other side asks us.

This past for example, week we had the whole Paul private property-CRA dispute. It's easy to play libertarian-Goldwater philosopher-king...when you're the one in the majority, who would've been able to patronize the hotels, restaurants, etc. without worry. What made people on the other side queasy was the feeling that some libertarians just seemed so cold and unfeeling about it all when it pertained to blacks in the Deep South facing true racism who had nowhere to stay or eat. Yeah, the CRA's old news- but to blacks who lived through it, it's obviously still important; and if it isn't Big Gov to help to do something about the persons who had nowhere to stay/eat, then what practical solutions are there under your view? As long as you are unwilling/unable to answer this, there will always be animosity towards your beliefs, and you personally.

And we talk about "free markets", small businesses, etc., but how is mere talk supposed to convince a low-income minority individual with a dream to start a business if s/he can't even get a loan? What should we really do to handle real/perceived racism of white cops in minority neighborhoods? There are hundreds of other questions, of course.

If you can't answer tough questions, how do you expect the other side to buy your argument?

Penny, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I don't think minority is a bad word, and as far as this elite list of occupations goes, I'm close with many of them and count myself in with some of those you listed.

Everyone gets tired. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone can use some humor in life. Quite a bit of it is good. Hence, the hanging out with Trooper.

But when we use bad ideas to denigrate others, I find that troubling. I am a scientist, published, among other things. I appreciate what plumbers and journalists do. The list goes on, as do my interests.

So when the climate issue reached fever pitch here, I rang in to show that the enterprise itself wasn't necessarily delegitimized. Against many cries to the contrary. That's what happens when an idea is taken seriously. It may stoke controversy.

I'd like to think I can make a distinction between a personal attack and objective remarks about a neutral topic, light commentary, and a serious idea. As I said, I just wish more people here would be clearer about that too. It would help in the same way all those people you mention are helping to improve the world.

Sometimes I mix things up in my own comments. But again, the ability to distinguish between personal and objective, comedy and serious ideas is something that I think most people value, and I believe the blogosphere does as well - above all.

"But Palladian's a homosexual so maybe that sort of an analysis doesn't register so easily with him. And hence, his fixation with a cartoonish stereotype of virility that could have just as easily come from an episode of Happy Days or an Archie comic strip."

Of course you didn't let me finish the story!

Little does your sociology T.A. know, but her big-dicked MBA jock spends his time away from her getting his ass pounded by some chunky faggot in the art department who call himself "Palladian".

"It has no power anymore. I don't care who calls me racist. It means nothing more than if they call me a heathen or a sinner."

It's not even that. It's like calling me a Jacobite or a Whig.

Real racism is practically extinct, so those who put bread on their table by picking at racial scabs have come up with this critical race theory nonsense. It's worthy of the contempt of all decent people.

Well, Ann, you've proven that you're no racist by that "don't use the 'n-word'" rule. Nothing wrong with the f-word or "teabagger" though, no matter how close it comes to "c**ksucker." I find it hard not to want to call someone an n-word when I hear the President call people the t-word.

Racism has long since ceased to be just a sign of ignorance or poor upbringing. Now, to be white IS to be racist in some peoples' minds. Ever since the civil rights movement, I've felt an apprehensiveness around African Americans that they would hate me because I'm white.

I don't think we'll get beyond that until the people who lived through that era has died, and even then I'm not sure. But using "racist" as a club to cut off discussion will have to become as distasteful a quality as being a racist.

By the way, I did a G-search for the h-word and found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honkydefined as "a racial slur for white people." Apparently, however, using it doesn't make one a racist. Likewise, "round eyes."

Not because that's true, AST, but because we have allowed the WORD minority to hold some special value that implies "less than", and in need of "more than".

That's half true. Minorities are ALWAYS less than the majority in numbers, yet sometimes more powerful despite the numbers.

We have come to describe the latter minority as the "elite". The moneymakers, the movers and the shakers who, despite their few numbers, still figured out a way to not let their small numbers get in the way.

It's too bad that you require that commentary here read with the relative simplicity of a label on a bottle of liquid soap, though.

I'd have a lot of unresolved anger myself if I tried to fit a complex world, and any description of it, into something so falsely and grossly over-simplified as that.

So did, well, you know... that leader you quote.

For someone who fears that his sons will grow up to be as snobby as the average Cantabrigian, you sure could stand to be a little less intolerant of people who don't think or write the same way about things as you do. It might provide them with a good example. Just sayin'.

Take care and thanks for the interesting diversion about liquid soap. I sure appreciated it more than I did all the vitriolic and foul language from a disgruntled job seeker.

We know manufactured racism has been made into a sin substutute in the modern world, but what about reality of sin? Is the concept of sin only to be reserved "to the truly terrible things that other people do, which allows you to maintain a pious sense that of course you are one of the good people." No one has really discussed this outside the restrictive context of racism.

Well geez, Theo. You'd think that with all the killing, enslavement, colonization and democide that this modern world's allowed us to carry out, attacking the idea of hostility towards people who differ from us might be a worthwhile effort.

I mean, someone should tell that Irish priest that machine guns merely provided stronger means for an outlet no less ancient than religion.

As for hygiene, that's a mixed bag. It obviously wards off disease, but shouldn't perpetuate the intolerant, eliminationist mindset - toward bacteria or anything else. That's counterproductive both to health and our overall psychology.

Since you seem to fixate on the Bible as the only reliable source of morality and wisdom, you might want to see what Deuteronomy 10:19 has to say about this.

I'm not clear on what you think of slavery though, since that was clearly condoned.

First, definitions. For me the most useful definition of racism is the opposite of Martin Luther King's dream--to judge a person not by the content of their character but the color of their skin.

Second, no, Ann, not everyone thinks that way, at all. Seriously when you are talking about human beings the phrase "all" is rarely true, unless it is a tautology. So when Sigmond Freud said that all men want to kill their fathers and sleep with their mothers, the correct answer is "speak for yourself, freak."

At my old blog i describe the fallacy of thinking that everyone thinks like you, in my fisking of Keith Olbermann. http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/02/fallacy-of-assuming-everyone-thinks.html

i think bluntly that applies to you, too. you have some unresolved issues, and so you presume everyone is the same. but other people really do think differently from you, on occassion.